logo Sign In

Film cells from a Technicolor print on ebay — Page 2

Author
Time
 (Edited)

From the technicolor frames i've seen in his completed and current listings, he/she seems to only have the technicolor print for half the film, from the luke training scene on the millenium falcon  to the very end of the film. I don't know how may reels that would be.

Author
Time

Let's remember that the name "Technicolor" was used long after the dye-transfer prints stopped being made. The company retained the name so "Technicolor" does not automatically mean IB prints.

Author
Time

Mielr said:

Let's remember that the name "Technicolor" was used long after the dye-transfer prints stopped being made. The company retained the name so "Technicolor" does not automatically mean IB prints.

True, but it's doubtful that normal print processes would have yielded a fadeless source. Unless they were just recently printed, say in the last ten years, which wouldn't make sense either.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

If they are from SE prints, it's doubtful much fading would be evident. Willitts Designs sold 70mm cels from all 3 OT films from pre-SE prints in the mid-90's and so far only the ROTJ prints show significant signs of fading (different stock used).

True dye-transfer prints did not use a photochemical process so there was no Technicolor "stock" per se. They used blank/clear strips of "film" for their printing (which was a lithography-type process).

On a side note, I don't think any true IB Print would say "Eastman Safety" because that denotes a photochemical stock.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor1.htm

It's interesting, though, and definitely worth a bit more research. It's too bad that the cels are 'scope.

Author
Time

http://zauberklang.ch/filmcolors/timeline-entry/1445/

"With the introduction of the chromogenic Eastmancolor negative/positive process it became possible to shoot with a normal one-strip camera. Three b/w color separations were produced from the Eastmancolor negative and printed by dye transfer on blank film"

http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/05/star-wars/

"Kaminski points out that a duplication of the original negative—commonly printed for the sake of protection—doesn't seem to exist for Star Wars. Something better was created, though: separation masters. "These are special silver-based copies that do not fade, and in theory should be almost identical in quality to the original negative itself, so even if the negative was destroyed you still have a perfect copy (which is the point of making the separation master)." Duplicates from these prints were used to replace damaged sections of the negative during the restoration before the release of the Special Edition."

So essentially the Technicolor film would be created based on the color separations, which were printed on Eastman stock.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time
 (Edited)


NeverarGreat said:


So essentially the Technicolor film would be created based on the color separations, which were printed on Eastman stock.


Right, but the separations aren't "prints". They would be b&w negatives, 3 of them, each recording one color record (Red, Green, Blue).

"Three b/w color separations were produced from the Eastmancolor negative and printed by dye transfer on blank film"

This essentially re-creates the process of the 3-strip camera, without the film having to be originally shot that way. The resulting print would be dye-transfer (non-photochemical). Only the negs would be photochemical. This is how the IB prints for Star Wars were created.

The 3 B&W negs have to be combined to produce a full-color print, so if you're looking at something full color, you're not looking at a separation master (and nobody would have access to one to cut up and sell, anyhow).

With new blu-ray releases of older films, they're using sep masters to create photochemical prints for the new transfers. But even if Technicolor makes them, they're no different than if they were done by Kodak or Rank or any other film lab. The Technicolor name doesn't mean anything anymore since all their dye-transfer operations are long gone.

Author
Time

As an aside, I find these technical discussions fascinating. And as msycamore's video illustrates, the previous stock designations are printed onto Technicolor dye-transfer prints, and as I understand it, the Technicolor film itself is clear with no markings. It's a shame that there is no working Technicolor lab anymore, I'd think that it would be extremely useful to have one lab which could print a dye-transfer copy of every film - just so there would be a color reference.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The history is fascinating, though unfortunately I know of few people outside film-themed forums whose eyes wouldn't glaze over at such discussions. ;-)

There used to be a dye-transfer lab in China (after the last Technicolor lab in England closed in 1978) but I think that one is gone now too. Richard W. Haines used the Chinese lab for his films and he wrote an article in 1991 for The Perfect Vision magazine called "The Return of Glorious Technicolor" which is very informative, if you can find it.

Author
Time

According to mverta, the separation masters for Star Wars are incomplete, and therefore unsuitable for use in a restoration.  I don't know if some parts have been lost, or were never made to begin with.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I've heard that the separations were done incorrectly and because they weren't tested at the time, they only recently discovered this. I recall something about Lucas being overheard telling someone at some sort of awards ceremony that the blue record was screwed up. I think this is common with films preserved this way, with the seps not being tested due to budget, indifference, laziness or whatever.

An interesting link:
http://youtu.be/7Y8JZ_w9a-k

Author
Time

Yeah, the story is they discovered there was problems with the separation masters back in the early nineties. Lucas talked briefly about it at the end of this Nolan interview: http://www.dga.org/Events/2011/04-april-2011/George-Lucas-on-Star-Wars.aspx

George Lucas - "We discovered there was no print. We did a three strip in order to preserve it. They had... Fox had never bothered to strike a print of it, fifty thousand dollars, so they never looked at it. I went to retrieve it from the salt mines, the cyan was completely out of sync with everything else. There was nothing you could do about it, it was worthless."

 

The Wall Street Journal article on the 1997 Special Edition mention it as well: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB854660380658056000

Shortly after production, the finished negative was supposedly preserved on a pair of YCM protective masters; the term refers to a three-strip process in which a record of each basic color component--yellow, cyan and magenta--is deposited separately in stable silver, rather than unstable dye, on black-and-white film stock that may last for more than a century (or may not; like every other archival medium, including optical disks, the YCM process has its quirks and instabilities).

But the preservation effort was botched, mostly by a failure to clean the negative before copying it, and the studio never bothered to inspect the final results. Far from constituting a single studio's sin, such neglect of corporate assets was endemic to Hollywood at the time, and remains widespread today.

We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions. 

Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com

Author
Time

Were the seps misaligned or just missing a color layer?

I have heard of other restorations where either a layer was missing or was accidentally duplicated.

Is this why we have so much more dirt and grain than what was originally exhibited in 1977.  Because they did a bad job?

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

skyjedi2005 said:

Were the seps misaligned or just missing a color layer?

I have heard of other restorations where either a layer was missing or was accidentally duplicated.

Is this why we have so much more dirt and grain than what was originally exhibited in 1977.  Because they did a bad job?

 

At 51:20 :

http://www.dga.org/Events/2011/04-april-2011/George-Lucas-on-Star-Wars.aspx

.......Lucas says he went to Poland and Czechoslovakia to retrieve prints.

In other words huge chunks of the special edition are based off 35mm release prints.

Having watched the 2011 bluray  upscaled to 4K it easy to determine 1st generation negs from dupe stocks.

The discrepancies have been equalized by DNR.

I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.

kurtb8474 1 week ago

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8


Author
Time

Well that sucks that leaves the film all but lost and no film level restoration can ever be done.  Just a video restoration. No wonder its stuck at 1080P.

Having to actually use release prints that is shocking.

Even if only for sections.  So what the other sources the IP/IN were unusable?

I suppose what was used to strike the original release prints is in worse or similar shape to the camera negative.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

Lucas isn't always clear when he talks, he may have meant some kind of intermediate IN or IP that yielded foreign subtitled prints in that part of the world, not that actual theater prints were used in 1997. I don't think they would have been able to integrate that back then.

Author
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

Well that sucks that leaves the film all but lost and no film level restoration can ever be done.  Just a video restoration. No wonder its stuck at 1080P.

Having to actually use release prints that is shocking.

Even if only for sections.  So what the other sources the IP/IN were unusable?

I suppose what was used to strike the original release prints is in worse or similar shape to the camera negative.

 

Even if the separation masters were in relatively good shape there would have been no guarantee that it would have saved the day.

A sizable portion of the original negative of Superman The Movie had been lost and had to be salvaged by using the separation elements but it did not yield 100% accurate results:   

There was a big chunk that was a dupe negative section, when
Lex Luthor pulls the Kryptonite out of the case all the way until he pushes
Superman into the pool. The original cut negative had been damaged by some lab, and somewhere someone combined YCM separations to make the dupe section. The colors were slightly out of registration. We never did find the negative for that. There was a dupe section for all of that and then there was
damage in other places, torn frames, stuff like that which had been backed by
mylar They would put clear mylar on the back of the negative so that the tear
wouldn't pull any farther and it would hold the film together. "

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/mohenryfanclub/message/298?l=1

I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.

kurtb8474 1 week ago

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8


Author
Time
 (Edited)

Baronlando said:

Lucas isn't always clear when he talks, he may have meant some kind of intermediate IN or IP that yielded foreign subtitled prints in that part of the world, not that actual theater prints were used in 1997. I don't think they would have been able to integrate that back then.

Yeah, its impossible to say what he is really talking about there but IP's or IN's in European countries sounds like an likely scenario where they had no other options, no way they ended up using release prints. 

EDIT: He doesn't even say that he went there to retrieve prints, his words was "I had to go to Poland and Czechoslovakia. Putting things together."

And despite him saying that the separations was worthless, other reports states they did actually use them to restore various sections of the film. And while color registration issues may have been a huge obstacle back in the early nineties, digital tools have made it possible to overcome potential color misalignment issues.

We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions. 

Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com

Author
Time
 (Edited)


skyjedi2005 said:
Were the seps misaligned or just missing a color layer?


My understanding (which is limited) is that the cyan strip was misaligned. But like msycamore said, if that's the case, they should be able to overcome that obstacle with digital tools.

But who the hell knows. We'll find out what happened at Area 51 before we find out what the fate of the original SW elements are.

Author
Time

danny_boy said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Were the seps misaligned or just missing a color layer?

I have heard of other restorations where either a layer was missing or was accidentally duplicated.

Is this why we have so much more dirt and grain than what was originally exhibited in 1977.  Because they did a bad job?

 

At 51:20 :

http://www.dga.org/Events/2011/04-april-2011/George-Lucas-on-Star-Wars.aspx

.......Lucas says he went to Poland and Czechoslovakia to retrieve prints.

In other words huge chunks of the special edition are based off 35mm release prints.

Having watched the 2011 bluray  upscaled to 4K it easy to determine 1st generation negs from dupe stocks.

The discrepancies have been equalized by DNR.

 Thank you for posting this DGA link.  I must have seen this at one time but watching it again was pretty fascinating.

Besides the preservation conversation, his tale about the editing of the picture is definitely revisionist.  He talks about firing the original editor and then hiring "assistant editors" to help him complete the film.  In George's eyes he edited the film with some assistants helping him.

Those "assistants" won the academy award for their work.

Author
Time

Marcia was just some random assistant or employee, not George's wife, not his sounding board or his other half.

Man the guy is so full of himself.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

I just bought a few of these so that I could look at them in person. I'll have to do a little research to see if there are any tell-tale signs that these are truly IB cels, which I hope they are.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-2-x-35mm-Film-Cells-Vintage-Star-Wars-1977-Han-Luke-amp-Leia-/121584354755?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=LI91UZJ%252FBqkf9DhZBqBTEwI8vX8%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc#ht_418wt_0

Offhand, does anyone know of a fairly easy way to determine if these are IB cels as opposed to photochemical? I imagine the "emulsion" side of the film would look different (?)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ratpack1961 said:

Thank you for posting this DGA link.  I must have seen this at one time but watching it again was pretty fascinating.

Besides the preservation conversation, his tale about the editing of the picture is definitely revisionist.  He talks about firing the original editor and then hiring "assistant editors" to help him complete the film.  In George's eyes he edited the film with some assistants helping him.

Those "assistants" won the academy award for their work.

Well, decades ago, the man obviously decided to live in an alternate reality. My favorite moment is when he describes the scripting process around the 9 minute mark.

"I wrote a giant script. The original film was basically subtitled The Tragedy of Darth Vader. And in the beginning Darth Vader comes in and kills everybody and in the middle you found out that this kid is actually the son of Darth Vader, and in the end the son validates, vindicates and allows the father to be ahh..." an awkward pause, Lucas scratches his nose and continues.

It's sad that even in an interview like that, he isn't able to be sincere when describing the writing process of what is essentially a simple fantasy movie. Instead he needs to burp his programmed "Lucasfilm mythology." The expression on Nolan's face is basically "What the hell are you talking about."

We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions. 

Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com